America Was Built on Natural Law

[koshergrl]

Great post. This place is invested with Luciferians though, it certainly won't be appreciated.

There is this one cat that comes through here, he is a hit and run poster, beware of him, he goes by the handle, GreatestIam.

Personally, I view what he does as cross posting (against forum rule). He'll make a post here, and then post the same thing on a dozen different forums across the net. A lot of these posters do this. It's an insidious way to make a living and change the tone of culture.

Here's an example;
This is incontrovertible proof that God is evil. God does not live by his own golden rule.

This is incontrovertible proof that God is evil. God does not live by his own golden rule. God kills when he could just as easily cure. This is irrefutable. This is a clear violation of the golden rule. The golden rule as articulated by Jesus. God then is clearly evil. Do you agree with Jesus that anyone who breaks the golden rule is evil? Regards - Google Search

Good luck with your uphill battle!

It wouldn't be any fun if it were easy.

I don't have the energy or health to make a membership at all the places he has a membership at. However, if YOU DO, I think your crusade would be best served to take it to where he is most active. Cross post these brilliant posts like you do, see what your results are. It's the only way to change the culture. Here, it's easy, the culture is soft, not nearly as hard as place like FB or the more left forums. lol

Then again, I remember the forum where I first met him, and I think that you would probably be shunned, shouted down, and banned inside a month. Those types of forums are heavily influenced by that Randi/csicop crowd. None of them have minds of their own. If you don't want easy, that's where you need to be.

I hear what you are saying, but I don't have the time. I spend more than I should here. These things are cyclical and tend to resolve themselves.

Yes, when asswipes like you get pounded either via elections or execution.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

“one nation under God,”

that was a compromise from the Articles of Confederation to the U S Constitution ... limiting individual state rights.

and no where were the revisionist allowed to include a religious basis, christianity to the document nor was God defined.

natural law in reality is an anathema to christianity that is an artificial religion derived by certain individuals in dissociation with natural moral concepts implanted by nature.

.

What a bunch of crap ... and no mention of John Locke either.

.

What a bunch of crap ... and no mention of John Locke either.

" The last change in language came on Flag Day 1954 when the words "under God" were added ".


you are correct - the republican reactionaries strike again, I did not know John Locke lived till 1954 and beyond ...

.

 

[ding]

Great post. This place is invested with Luciferians though, it certainly won't be appreciated.

There is this one cat that comes through here, he is a hit and run poster, beware of him, he goes by the handle, GreatestIam.

Personally, I view what he does as cross posting (against forum rule). He'll make a post here, and then post the same thing on a dozen different forums across the net. A lot of these posters do this. It's an insidious way to make a living and change the tone of culture.

Here's an example;
This is incontrovertible proof that God is evil. God does not live by his own golden rule.

This is incontrovertible proof that God is evil. God does not live by his own golden rule. God kills when he could just as easily cure. This is irrefutable. This is a clear violation of the golden rule. The golden rule as articulated by Jesus. God then is clearly evil. Do you agree with Jesus that anyone who breaks the golden rule is evil? Regards - Google Search

Good luck with your uphill battle!

It wouldn't be any fun if it were easy.

I don't have the energy or health to make a membership at all the places he has a membership at. However, if YOU DO, I think your crusade would be best served to take it to where he is most active. Cross post these brilliant posts like you do, see what your results are. It's the only way to change the culture. Here, it's easy, the culture is soft, not nearly as hard as place like FB or the more left forums. lol

Then again, I remember the forum where I first met him, and I think that you would probably be shunned, shouted down, and banned inside a month. Those types of forums are heavily influenced by that Randi/csicop crowd. None of them have minds of their own. If you don't want easy, that's where you need to be.

I hear what you are saying, but I don't have the time. I spend more than I should here. These things are cyclical and tend to resolve themselves.

Yes, when asswipes like you get pounded either via elections or execution.

Not a fan of natural law, I see.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jefferson believed in the divine, a form of warm deism. He venerated the moral teachings of Christ, and spurned the fables and miracles of the Bible (no Virgin Birth or resurrection for TJ). He called himself a Christian of "a sect of one."

Ding is misreading Jefferson in order to tie him into latter day 'Jesus in America' nonsensical history.

 

[ding]

Jefferson believed in the divine, a form of warm deism. He venerated the moral teachings of Christ, and spurned the fables and miracles of the Bible (no Virgin Birth or resurrection for TJ). He called himself a Christian of "a sect of one."

Ding is misreading Jefferson in order to tie him into latter day 'Jesus in America' nonsensical history.

Look... no Jefferson and the point still stands.

Throughout the first century of US. history, natural law was upheld as a key principle of government by the American people and their leader, not only by Presidents and the Congress, but also by the Supreme Court.

In the view of the Court, its members were to decide cases by exercising “that understanding which Providence has bestowed upon them.” (Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1, 186-87, 1824). Since the laws they adjudicated were based on “the preexisting and higher authority of the laws of nature,” (The West River Bridge Company v. Joseph Dix, 47 U.S. 507, 532, 1848), they relied less on judicial precedent than on “eternal justice as it comes from intelligence… to guide the conscience of the Court.” (Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 39 U.S. 210, 225, 1840).

Cicero defines Natural Law as “true law.” “True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions…. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to repeal any part of it, and it is impossible to abolish entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by senate or people, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is God, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst punishment.” (The Five thousand Year Leap, p. 40)

In 1764, Massachusetts patriot James Otis defined Natural Law as “the rules of moral conduct implanted by nature in the human mind, forming the proper basis for and being superior to all written laws; the will of God revealed to man through his conscience.” (Annals of America, 2:11)

Natural Law: The Basis of Moral Government - National Center for Constitutional Studies

“The law of nature is that which God at the time of creation of the nature of man infused into his heart, for his preservation and direction…the moral law, called also the law of nature.” (Sir Edward Coke, Calvin’s Case in The Selected Writings and Speeches of Sir Edward Coke)

“…as man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should, in all points, conform to his Maker's will. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature...This law of nature...dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority...from this original. "Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these." (William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Law 1723-1780)

“Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine…Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants.” (James Wilson “Of the General Principles of Law and Obligation”, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Signed U.S. Constitution)

 

[Syriusly]

Jefferson believed in the divine, a form of warm deism. He venerated the moral teachings of Christ, and spurned the fables and miracles of the Bible (no Virgin Birth or resurrection for TJ). He called himself a Christian of "a sect of one."

Ding is misreading Jefferson in order to tie him into latter day 'Jesus in America' nonsensical history.

Look... no Jefferson and the point still stands.

Throughout the first century of US. history, natural law was upheld as a key principle of government by the American people and their leader, not only by Presidents and the Congress, but also by the Supreme Court.

In the view of the Court, its members were to decide cases by exercising “that understanding which Providence has bestowed upon them.” (Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1, 186-87, 1824). Since the laws they adjudicated were based on “the preexisting and higher authority of the laws of nature,” (The West River Bridge Company v. Joseph Dix, 47 U.S. 507, 532, 1848), they relied less on judicial precedent than on “eternal justice as it comes from intelligence… to guide the conscience of the Court.” (Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 39 U.S. 210, 225, 1840).

Cicero defines Natural Law as “true law.” “True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions…. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to repeal any part of it, and it is impossible to abolish entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by senate or people, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is God, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst punishment.” (The Five thousand Year Leap, p. 40)

In 1764, Massachusetts patriot James Otis defined Natural Law as “the rules of moral conduct implanted by nature in the human mind, forming the proper basis for and being superior to all written laws; the will of God revealed to man through his conscience.” (Annals of America, 2:11)

Natural Law: The Basis of Moral Government - National Center for Constitutional Studies

“The law of nature is that which God at the time of creation of the nature of man infused into his heart, for his preservation and direction…the moral law, called also the law of nature.” (Sir Edward Coke, Calvin’s Case in The Selected Writings and Speeches of Sir Edward Coke)

“…as man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should, in all points, conform to his Maker's will. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature...This law of nature...dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority...from this original. "Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these." (William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Law 1723-1780)

“Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine…Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants.” (James Wilson “Of the General Principles of Law and Obligation”, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Signed U.S. Constitution)

The problem with 'Natural Law" is it is whatever people decide it is- and as long as 'natural law' is not codified into actual law- it is nothing but a vague concept.

Lets look at the Declaration of Independence- cited by the OP.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

But the writers of the Declaration of Independence didn't actually think that all men are created equal. The slave born into chattel bondage was not considered as created equal- nor were they born into liberty.

And what about women? Does this apply to women? The men who wrote this did not believe that. Which is why Jane Addams had to ask John not to forget the women- who were not born equal to men.

And the 'pursuit of Happiness'- Colonial United States happily passed laws restricting the rights of men(and women) regarding their pursuit of Happiness.

What is "natural law"?

Mostly it is a device by those who want to appeal to something besides the written law.

 

[ding]

Jefferson believed in the divine, a form of warm deism. He venerated the moral teachings of Christ, and spurned the fables and miracles of the Bible (no Virgin Birth or resurrection for TJ). He called himself a Christian of "a sect of one."

Ding is misreading Jefferson in order to tie him into latter day 'Jesus in America' nonsensical history.

Look... no Jefferson and the point still stands.

Throughout the first century of US. history, natural law was upheld as a key principle of government by the American people and their leader, not only by Presidents and the Congress, but also by the Supreme Court.

In the view of the Court, its members were to decide cases by exercising “that understanding which Providence has bestowed upon them.” (Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1, 186-87, 1824). Since the laws they adjudicated were based on “the preexisting and higher authority of the laws of nature,” (The West River Bridge Company v. Joseph Dix, 47 U.S. 507, 532, 1848), they relied less on judicial precedent than on “eternal justice as it comes from intelligence… to guide the conscience of the Court.” (Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 39 U.S. 210, 225, 1840).

Cicero defines Natural Law as “true law.” “True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions…. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to repeal any part of it, and it is impossible to abolish entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by senate or people, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is God, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst punishment.” (The Five thousand Year Leap, p. 40)

In 1764, Massachusetts patriot James Otis defined Natural Law as “the rules of moral conduct implanted by nature in the human mind, forming the proper basis for and being superior to all written laws; the will of God revealed to man through his conscience.” (Annals of America, 2:11)

Natural Law: The Basis of Moral Government - National Center for Constitutional Studies

“The law of nature is that which God at the time of creation of the nature of man infused into his heart, for his preservation and direction…the moral law, called also the law of nature.” (Sir Edward Coke, Calvin’s Case in The Selected Writings and Speeches of Sir Edward Coke)

“…as man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should, in all points, conform to his Maker's will. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature...This law of nature...dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority...from this original. "Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these." (William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Law 1723-1780)

“Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine…Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants.” (James Wilson “Of the General Principles of Law and Obligation”, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Signed U.S. Constitution)

The problem with 'Natural Law" is it is whatever people decide it is- and as long as 'natural law' is not codified into actual law- it is nothing but a vague concept.

Lets look at the Declaration of Independence- cited by the OP.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

But the writers of the Declaration of Independence didn't actually think that all men are created equal. The slave born into chattel bondage was not considered as created equal- nor were they born into liberty.

And what about women? Does this apply to women? The men who wrote this did not believe that. Which is why Jane Addams had to ask John not to forget the women- who were not born equal to men.

And the 'pursuit of Happiness'- Colonial United States happily passed laws restricting the rights of men(and women) regarding their pursuit of Happiness.

What is "natural law"?

Mostly it is a device by those who want to appeal to something besides the written law.

Objective truth is universal. Subjective truth is not. Objective truth withstands the test of time. Subjective truth does not. You are confusing relative morals for absolute morals. Absolute morals state that slavery is wrong, has always been wrong and will always be wrong. So the flaw in your argument is using relative morals as a test for universal morals. The error you are trying to prove is not in morality. The error is in your presentation of morality. Men can and have justified just about any dumbass behavior. They might even have a majority of people convinced they are right, but since error cannot stand, the flaw in the rationalization will always reveal itself eventually. Natural Law is discovered and once discovered it will be known that it was always true and will always be true. Natural Law will not need a rationalization that a wrong is right and will hold men accountable to highest possible standard. That is how you will know you have discovered it. There won't be a higher standard that exists.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jefferson believed in the divine, a form of warm deism. He venerated the moral teachings of Christ, and spurned the fables and miracles of the Bible (no Virgin Birth or resurrection for TJ). He called himself a Christian of "a sect of one."

Ding is misreading Jefferson in order to tie him into latter day 'Jesus in America' nonsensical history.

Look... no Jefferson and the point still stands.

Throughout the first century of US. history, natural law was upheld as a key principle of government by the American people and their leader, not only by Presidents and the Congress, but also by the Supreme Court.

In the view of the Court, its members were to decide cases by exercising “that understanding which Providence has bestowed upon them.” (Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1, 186-87, 1824). Since the laws they adjudicated were based on “the preexisting and higher authority of the laws of nature,” (The West River Bridge Company v. Joseph Dix, 47 U.S. 507, 532, 1848), they relied less on judicial precedent than on “eternal justice as it comes from intelligence… to guide the conscience of the Court.” (Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 39 U.S. 210, 225, 1840).

Cicero defines Natural Law as “true law.” “True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions…. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to repeal any part of it, and it is impossible to abolish entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by senate or people, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is God, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst punishment.” (The Five thousand Year Leap, p. 40)

In 1764, Massachusetts patriot James Otis defined Natural Law as “the rules of moral conduct implanted by nature in the human mind, forming the proper basis for and being superior to all written laws; the will of God revealed to man through his conscience.” (Annals of America, 2:11)

Natural Law: The Basis of Moral Government - National Center for Constitutional Studies

“The law of nature is that which God at the time of creation of the nature of man infused into his heart, for his preservation and direction…the moral law, called also the law of nature.” (Sir Edward Coke, Calvin’s Case in The Selected Writings and Speeches of Sir Edward Coke)

“…as man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should, in all points, conform to his Maker's will. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature...This law of nature...dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority...from this original. "Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these." (William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Law 1723-1780)

“Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine…Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants.” (James Wilson “Of the General Principles of Law and Obligation”, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Signed U.S. Constitution)

And that approach, as extreme as you paint it, has been resisted variously during the course of the country's existence. With the waning of the white Protestant great awakenings and revivals by the 1930s, and despite a waning resurgence in the Graham and post-Graham era, a post-Christian emphasis on multiculturalism and the actual teachings of Jesus have come to the fore. Now the American people are entering a growing age of secularlism. So part of what you believe is certainly true for people like you, the post-Graham era is true for me as a Christian, but a solid minority of Americans are either unchurched or skeptical or other religions.

And you have demonstrated in your writings on the Board not any propensity as an historian or exemplar of divine truth.

 

[ding]

Jefferson believed in the divine, a form of warm deism. He venerated the moral teachings of Christ, and spurned the fables and miracles of the Bible (no Virgin Birth or resurrection for TJ). He called himself a Christian of "a sect of one."

Ding is misreading Jefferson in order to tie him into latter day 'Jesus in America' nonsensical history.

Look... no Jefferson and the point still stands.

Throughout the first century of US. history, natural law was upheld as a key principle of government by the American people and their leader, not only by Presidents and the Congress, but also by the Supreme Court.

In the view of the Court, its members were to decide cases by exercising “that understanding which Providence has bestowed upon them.” (Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1, 186-87, 1824). Since the laws they adjudicated were based on “the preexisting and higher authority of the laws of nature,” (The West River Bridge Company v. Joseph Dix, 47 U.S. 507, 532, 1848), they relied less on judicial precedent than on “eternal justice as it comes from intelligence… to guide the conscience of the Court.” (Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 39 U.S. 210, 225, 1840).

Cicero defines Natural Law as “true law.” “True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions…. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to repeal any part of it, and it is impossible to abolish entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by senate or people, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is God, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst punishment.” (The Five thousand Year Leap, p. 40)

In 1764, Massachusetts patriot James Otis defined Natural Law as “the rules of moral conduct implanted by nature in the human mind, forming the proper basis for and being superior to all written laws; the will of God revealed to man through his conscience.” (Annals of America, 2:11)

Natural Law: The Basis of Moral Government - National Center for Constitutional Studies

“The law of nature is that which God at the time of creation of the nature of man infused into his heart, for his preservation and direction…the moral law, called also the law of nature.” (Sir Edward Coke, Calvin’s Case in The Selected Writings and Speeches of Sir Edward Coke)

“…as man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should, in all points, conform to his Maker's will. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature...This law of nature...dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority...from this original. "Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these." (William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Law 1723-1780)

“Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine…Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants.” (James Wilson “Of the General Principles of Law and Obligation”, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Signed U.S. Constitution)

And that approach, as extreme as you paint it, has been resisted variously during the course of the country's existence. With the waning of the white Protestant great awakenings and revivals by the 1930s, and despite a waning resurgence in the Graham and post-Graham era, a post-Christian emphasis on multiculturalism and the actual teachings of Jesus have come to the fore. Now the American people are entering a growing age of secularlism. So part of what you believe is certainly true for people like you, the post-Graham era is true for me as a Christian, but a solid minority of Americans are either unchurched or skeptical or other religions.

And you have demonstrated in your writings on the Board not any propensity as an historian or exemplar of divine truth.

And you have demonstrated yourself to be a subversive communist who practices the art of deceit.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jefferson believed in the divine, a form of warm deism. He venerated the moral teachings of Christ, and spurned the fables and miracles of the Bible (no Virgin Birth or resurrection for TJ). He called himself a Christian of "a sect of one."

Ding is misreading Jefferson in order to tie him into latter day 'Jesus in America' nonsensical history.

Look... no Jefferson and the point still stands.

Throughout the first century of US. history, natural law was upheld as a key principle of government by the American people and their leader, not only by Presidents and the Congress, but also by the Supreme Court.

In the view of the Court, its members were to decide cases by exercising “that understanding which Providence has bestowed upon them.” (Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1, 186-87, 1824). Since the laws they adjudicated were based on “the preexisting and higher authority of the laws of nature,” (The West River Bridge Company v. Joseph Dix, 47 U.S. 507, 532, 1848), they relied less on judicial precedent than on “eternal justice as it comes from intelligence… to guide the conscience of the Court.” (Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 39 U.S. 210, 225, 1840).

Cicero defines Natural Law as “true law.” “True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions…. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to repeal any part of it, and it is impossible to abolish entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by senate or people, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is God, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst punishment.” (The Five thousand Year Leap, p. 40)

In 1764, Massachusetts patriot James Otis defined Natural Law as “the rules of moral conduct implanted by nature in the human mind, forming the proper basis for and being superior to all written laws; the will of God revealed to man through his conscience.” (Annals of America, 2:11)

Natural Law: The Basis of Moral Government - National Center for Constitutional Studies

“The law of nature is that which God at the time of creation of the nature of man infused into his heart, for his preservation and direction…the moral law, called also the law of nature.” (Sir Edward Coke, Calvin’s Case in The Selected Writings and Speeches of Sir Edward Coke)

“…as man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should, in all points, conform to his Maker's will. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature...This law of nature...dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority...from this original. "Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these." (William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Law 1723-1780)

“Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine…Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants.” (James Wilson “Of the General Principles of Law and Obligation”, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Signed U.S. Constitution)

And that approach, as extreme as you paint it, has been resisted variously during the course of the country's existence. With the waning of the white Protestant great awakenings and revivals by the 1930s, and despite a waning resurgence in the Graham and post-Graham era, a post-Christian emphasis on multiculturalism and the actual teachings of Jesus have come to the fore. Now the American people are entering a growing age of secularlism. So part of what you believe is certainly true for people like you, the post-Graham era is true for me as a Christian, but a solid minority of Americans are either unchurched or skeptical or other religions.

And you have demonstrated in your writings on the Board not any propensity as an historian or exemplar of divine truth.

And you have demonstrated yourself to be a subversive communist who practices the art of deceit.

I am a born again washed in the blood of the lamb Christian. Step to the left, goat, as I walk by. I call Jesus "Lord" and He calls me by my first name.

 

[ding]

Jefferson believed in the divine, a form of warm deism. He venerated the moral teachings of Christ, and spurned the fables and miracles of the Bible (no Virgin Birth or resurrection for TJ). He called himself a Christian of "a sect of one."

Ding is misreading Jefferson in order to tie him into latter day 'Jesus in America' nonsensical history.

Look... no Jefferson and the point still stands.

Throughout the first century of US. history, natural law was upheld as a key principle of government by the American people and their leader, not only by Presidents and the Congress, but also by the Supreme Court.

In the view of the Court, its members were to decide cases by exercising “that understanding which Providence has bestowed upon them.” (Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1, 186-87, 1824). Since the laws they adjudicated were based on “the preexisting and higher authority of the laws of nature,” (The West River Bridge Company v. Joseph Dix, 47 U.S. 507, 532, 1848), they relied less on judicial precedent than on “eternal justice as it comes from intelligence… to guide the conscience of the Court.” (Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 39 U.S. 210, 225, 1840).

Cicero defines Natural Law as “true law.” “True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions…. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to repeal any part of it, and it is impossible to abolish entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by senate or people, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is God, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst punishment.” (The Five thousand Year Leap, p. 40)

In 1764, Massachusetts patriot James Otis defined Natural Law as “the rules of moral conduct implanted by nature in the human mind, forming the proper basis for and being superior to all written laws; the will of God revealed to man through his conscience.” (Annals of America, 2:11)

Natural Law: The Basis of Moral Government - National Center for Constitutional Studies

“The law of nature is that which God at the time of creation of the nature of man infused into his heart, for his preservation and direction…the moral law, called also the law of nature.” (Sir Edward Coke, Calvin’s Case in The Selected Writings and Speeches of Sir Edward Coke)

“…as man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should, in all points, conform to his Maker's will. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature...This law of nature...dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority...from this original. "Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these." (William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Law 1723-1780)

“Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine…Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants.” (James Wilson “Of the General Principles of Law and Obligation”, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Signed U.S. Constitution)

And that approach, as extreme as you paint it, has been resisted variously during the course of the country's existence. With the waning of the white Protestant great awakenings and revivals by the 1930s, and despite a waning resurgence in the Graham and post-Graham era, a post-Christian emphasis on multiculturalism and the actual teachings of Jesus have come to the fore. Now the American people are entering a growing age of secularlism. So part of what you believe is certainly true for people like you, the post-Graham era is true for me as a Christian, but a solid minority of Americans are either unchurched or skeptical or other religions.

And you have demonstrated in your writings on the Board not any propensity as an historian or exemplar of divine truth.

Do you hold similarly poor opinions of George Washington, John Adams, John Dickinson, George Mason, Daniel Carroll, Edward Coke, William Mansfield, Joseph Story and John Locke because they believed in the Natural Law?

Natural Law and the United States Constitution | The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College Center for Vision and Values - A conservative think tank promoting truth and liberty through a vision of faith and freedom.

The Founding Fathers and the Natural Law: A Study of the Source of Our Legal Institutions on JSTOR

 

[ding]

Jefferson believed in the divine, a form of warm deism. He venerated the moral teachings of Christ, and spurned the fables and miracles of the Bible (no Virgin Birth or resurrection for TJ). He called himself a Christian of "a sect of one."

Ding is misreading Jefferson in order to tie him into latter day 'Jesus in America' nonsensical history.

Look... no Jefferson and the point still stands.

Throughout the first century of US. history, natural law was upheld as a key principle of government by the American people and their leader, not only by Presidents and the Congress, but also by the Supreme Court.

In the view of the Court, its members were to decide cases by exercising “that understanding which Providence has bestowed upon them.” (Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1, 186-87, 1824). Since the laws they adjudicated were based on “the preexisting and higher authority of the laws of nature,” (The West River Bridge Company v. Joseph Dix, 47 U.S. 507, 532, 1848), they relied less on judicial precedent than on “eternal justice as it comes from intelligence… to guide the conscience of the Court.” (Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 39 U.S. 210, 225, 1840).

Cicero defines Natural Law as “true law.” “True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions…. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to repeal any part of it, and it is impossible to abolish entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by senate or people, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is God, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst punishment.” (The Five thousand Year Leap, p. 40)

In 1764, Massachusetts patriot James Otis defined Natural Law as “the rules of moral conduct implanted by nature in the human mind, forming the proper basis for and being superior to all written laws; the will of God revealed to man through his conscience.” (Annals of America, 2:11)

Natural Law: The Basis of Moral Government - National Center for Constitutional Studies

“The law of nature is that which God at the time of creation of the nature of man infused into his heart, for his preservation and direction…the moral law, called also the law of nature.” (Sir Edward Coke, Calvin’s Case in The Selected Writings and Speeches of Sir Edward Coke)

“…as man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should, in all points, conform to his Maker's will. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature...This law of nature...dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority...from this original. "Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these." (William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Law 1723-1780)

“Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine…Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants.” (James Wilson “Of the General Principles of Law and Obligation”, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Signed U.S. Constitution)

And that approach, as extreme as you paint it, has been resisted variously during the course of the country's existence. With the waning of the white Protestant great awakenings and revivals by the 1930s, and despite a waning resurgence in the Graham and post-Graham era, a post-Christian emphasis on multiculturalism and the actual teachings of Jesus have come to the fore. Now the American people are entering a growing age of secularlism. So part of what you believe is certainly true for people like you, the post-Graham era is true for me as a Christian, but a solid minority of Americans are either unchurched or skeptical or other religions.

And you have demonstrated in your writings on the Board not any propensity as an historian or exemplar of divine truth.

And you have demonstrated yourself to be a subversive communist who practices the art of deceit.

I am a born again washed in the blood of the lamb Christian. Step to the left, goat, as I walk by. I call Jesus "Lord" and He calls me by my first name.

Bullshit, Ivan.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jefferson believed in the divine, a form of warm deism. He venerated the moral teachings of Christ, and spurned the fables and miracles of the Bible (no Virgin Birth or resurrection for TJ). He called himself a Christian of "a sect of one."

Ding is misreading Jefferson in order to tie him into latter day 'Jesus in America' nonsensical history.

Look... no Jefferson and the point still stands.

Throughout the first century of US. history, natural law was upheld as a key principle of government by the American people and their leader, not only by Presidents and the Congress, but also by the Supreme Court.

In the view of the Court, its members were to decide cases by exercising “that understanding which Providence has bestowed upon them.” (Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1, 186-87, 1824). Since the laws they adjudicated were based on “the preexisting and higher authority of the laws of nature,” (The West River Bridge Company v. Joseph Dix, 47 U.S. 507, 532, 1848), they relied less on judicial precedent than on “eternal justice as it comes from intelligence… to guide the conscience of the Court.” (Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 39 U.S. 210, 225, 1840).

Cicero defines Natural Law as “true law.” “True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions…. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to repeal any part of it, and it is impossible to abolish entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by senate or people, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is God, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst punishment.” (The Five thousand Year Leap, p. 40)

In 1764, Massachusetts patriot James Otis defined Natural Law as “the rules of moral conduct implanted by nature in the human mind, forming the proper basis for and being superior to all written laws; the will of God revealed to man through his conscience.” (Annals of America, 2:11)

Natural Law: The Basis of Moral Government - National Center for Constitutional Studies

“The law of nature is that which God at the time of creation of the nature of man infused into his heart, for his preservation and direction…the moral law, called also the law of nature.” (Sir Edward Coke, Calvin’s Case in The Selected Writings and Speeches of Sir Edward Coke)

“…as man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should, in all points, conform to his Maker's will. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature...This law of nature...dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority...from this original. "Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these." (William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Law 1723-1780)

“Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine…Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants.” (James Wilson “Of the General Principles of Law and Obligation”, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Signed U.S. Constitution)

And that approach, as extreme as you paint it, has been resisted variously during the course of the country's existence. With the waning of the white Protestant great awakenings and revivals by the 1930s, and despite a waning resurgence in the Graham and post-Graham era, a post-Christian emphasis on multiculturalism and the actual teachings of Jesus have come to the fore. Now the American people are entering a growing age of secularlism. So part of what you believe is certainly true for people like you, the post-Graham era is true for me as a Christian, but a solid minority of Americans are either unchurched or skeptical or other religions.

And you have demonstrated in your writings on the Board not any propensity as an historian or exemplar of divine truth.

Do you hold similarly poor opinions of George Washington, John Adams, John Dickinson, George Mason, Daniel Carroll, Edward Coke, William Mansfield, Joseph Story and John Locke because they believed in the Natural Law?

Natural Law and the United States Constitution | The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College Center for Vision and Values - A conservative think tank promoting truth and liberty through a vision of faith and freedom.

The Founding Fathers and the Natural Law: A Study of the Source of Our Legal Institutions on JSTOR

The Manion article, which I read the first time some twenty years ago, remains provocative, very interesting, and not conclusive.

The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College | a conservative think tank promoting truth and liberty through a vision of faith and freedom. is a very far right almost Christian dominion site.

Grove City College is an online degree mill of the far right Christian stamp.

I do know that GW refused communion when pushed by his parish priest and never partook of it again.

John Adams on a good day was a Unitarian.

John Dickinson was a pacifist Quaker then a militant Episcopalian who had no use for Baptists, etc.

George Mason was opposed to religious establishment and fought it against it bitterly, as did Madison and Washington.

Daniel Carroll was a Catholic who thought some of the harder-core Protestant founders were a bit loopy.

If you want better Christian examples of the evangelical prototypes, look at John Jay and Patrick Henry.

 

[ding]

Jefferson believed in the divine, a form of warm deism. He venerated the moral teachings of Christ, and spurned the fables and miracles of the Bible (no Virgin Birth or resurrection for TJ). He called himself a Christian of "a sect of one."

Ding is misreading Jefferson in order to tie him into latter day 'Jesus in America' nonsensical history.

Look... no Jefferson and the point still stands.

Throughout the first century of US. history, natural law was upheld as a key principle of government by the American people and their leader, not only by Presidents and the Congress, but also by the Supreme Court.

In the view of the Court, its members were to decide cases by exercising “that understanding which Providence has bestowed upon them.” (Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1, 186-87, 1824). Since the laws they adjudicated were based on “the preexisting and higher authority of the laws of nature,” (The West River Bridge Company v. Joseph Dix, 47 U.S. 507, 532, 1848), they relied less on judicial precedent than on “eternal justice as it comes from intelligence… to guide the conscience of the Court.” (Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 39 U.S. 210, 225, 1840).

Cicero defines Natural Law as “true law.” “True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions…. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to repeal any part of it, and it is impossible to abolish entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by senate or people, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is God, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst punishment.” (The Five thousand Year Leap, p. 40)

In 1764, Massachusetts patriot James Otis defined Natural Law as “the rules of moral conduct implanted by nature in the human mind, forming the proper basis for and being superior to all written laws; the will of God revealed to man through his conscience.” (Annals of America, 2:11)

Natural Law: The Basis of Moral Government - National Center for Constitutional Studies

“The law of nature is that which God at the time of creation of the nature of man infused into his heart, for his preservation and direction…the moral law, called also the law of nature.” (Sir Edward Coke, Calvin’s Case in The Selected Writings and Speeches of Sir Edward Coke)

“…as man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should, in all points, conform to his Maker's will. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature...This law of nature...dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority...from this original. "Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these." (William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Law 1723-1780)

“Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine…Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants.” (James Wilson “Of the General Principles of Law and Obligation”, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Signed U.S. Constitution)

And that approach, as extreme as you paint it, has been resisted variously during the course of the country's existence. With the waning of the white Protestant great awakenings and revivals by the 1930s, and despite a waning resurgence in the Graham and post-Graham era, a post-Christian emphasis on multiculturalism and the actual teachings of Jesus have come to the fore. Now the American people are entering a growing age of secularlism. So part of what you believe is certainly true for people like you, the post-Graham era is true for me as a Christian, but a solid minority of Americans are either unchurched or skeptical or other religions.

And you have demonstrated in your writings on the Board not any propensity as an historian or exemplar of divine truth.

Do you hold similarly poor opinions of George Washington, John Adams, John Dickinson, George Mason, Daniel Carroll, Edward Coke, William Mansfield, Joseph Story and John Locke because they believed in the Natural Law?

Natural Law and the United States Constitution | The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College Center for Vision and Values - A conservative think tank promoting truth and liberty through a vision of faith and freedom.

The Founding Fathers and the Natural Law: A Study of the Source of Our Legal Institutions on JSTOR

The Manion article, which I read the first time some twenty years ago, remains provocative, very interesting, and not conclusive.

The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College | a conservative think tank promoting truth and liberty through a vision of faith and freedom. is a very far right almost Christian dominion site.

Grove City College is an online degree mill of the far right Christian stamp.

I do know that GW refused communion when pushed by his parish priest and never partook of it again.

John Adams on a good day was a Unitarian.

John Dickinson was a pacifist Quaker then a militant Episcopalian who had no use for Baptists, etc.

George Mason was opposed to religious establishment and fought it against it bitterly, as did Madison and Washington.

Daniel Carroll was a Catholic who thought some of the harder-core Protestant founders were a bit loopy.

If you want better Christian examples of the evangelical prototypes, look at John Jay and Patrick Henry.

Ivan, it's not about religion. The fact that you are trying to make it about religion just proves what a subversive POS you really are.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jefferson believed in the divine, a form of warm deism. He venerated the moral teachings of Christ, and spurned the fables and miracles of the Bible (no Virgin Birth or resurrection for TJ). He called himself a Christian of "a sect of one."

Ding is misreading Jefferson in order to tie him into latter day 'Jesus in America' nonsensical history.

Look... no Jefferson and the point still stands.

Throughout the first century of US. history, natural law was upheld as a key principle of government by the American people and their leader, not only by Presidents and the Congress, but also by the Supreme Court.

In the view of the Court, its members were to decide cases by exercising “that understanding which Providence has bestowed upon them.” (Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1, 186-87, 1824). Since the laws they adjudicated were based on “the preexisting and higher authority of the laws of nature,” (The West River Bridge Company v. Joseph Dix, 47 U.S. 507, 532, 1848), they relied less on judicial precedent than on “eternal justice as it comes from intelligence… to guide the conscience of the Court.” (Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 39 U.S. 210, 225, 1840).

Cicero defines Natural Law as “true law.” “True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions…. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to repeal any part of it, and it is impossible to abolish entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by senate or people, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is God, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst punishment.” (The Five thousand Year Leap, p. 40)

In 1764, Massachusetts patriot James Otis defined Natural Law as “the rules of moral conduct implanted by nature in the human mind, forming the proper basis for and being superior to all written laws; the will of God revealed to man through his conscience.” (Annals of America, 2:11)

Natural Law: The Basis of Moral Government - National Center for Constitutional Studies

“The law of nature is that which God at the time of creation of the nature of man infused into his heart, for his preservation and direction…the moral law, called also the law of nature.” (Sir Edward Coke, Calvin’s Case in The Selected Writings and Speeches of Sir Edward Coke)

“…as man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should, in all points, conform to his Maker's will. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature...This law of nature...dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority...from this original. "Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these." (William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Law 1723-1780)

“Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine…Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants.” (James Wilson “Of the General Principles of Law and Obligation”, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Signed U.S. Constitution)

And that approach, as extreme as you paint it, has been resisted variously during the course of the country's existence. With the waning of the white Protestant great awakenings and revivals by the 1930s, and despite a waning resurgence in the Graham and post-Graham era, a post-Christian emphasis on multiculturalism and the actual teachings of Jesus have come to the fore. Now the American people are entering a growing age of secularlism. So part of what you believe is certainly true for people like you, the post-Graham era is true for me as a Christian, but a solid minority of Americans are either unchurched or skeptical or other religions.

And you have demonstrated in your writings on the Board not any propensity as an historian or exemplar of divine truth.

Do you hold similarly poor opinions of George Washington, John Adams, John Dickinson, George Mason, Daniel Carroll, Edward Coke, William Mansfield, Joseph Story and John Locke because they believed in the Natural Law?

Natural Law and the United States Constitution | The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College Center for Vision and Values - A conservative think tank promoting truth and liberty through a vision of faith and freedom.

The Founding Fathers and the Natural Law: A Study of the Source of Our Legal Institutions on JSTOR

The Manion article, which I read the first time some twenty years ago, remains provocative, very interesting, and not conclusive.

The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College | a conservative think tank promoting truth and liberty through a vision of faith and freedom. is a very far right almost Christian dominion site.

Grove City College is an online degree mill of the far right Christian stamp.

I do know that GW refused communion when pushed by his parish priest and never partook of it again.

John Adams on a good day was a Unitarian.

John Dickinson was a pacifist Quaker then a militant Episcopalian who had no use for Baptists, etc.

George Mason was opposed to religious establishment and fought it against it bitterly, as did Madison and Washington.

Daniel Carroll was a Catholic who thought some of the harder-core Protestant founders were a bit loopy.

If you want better Christian examples of the evangelical prototypes, look at John Jay and Patrick Henry.

Ivan, it's not about religion. The fact that you are trying to make it about religion just proves what a subversive POS you really are.

I have made it about personality and religious beliefs of the Founders, whom you tried to drag in as a supporter of your far right evangelical interpretation of history that refuses to accept other valid points. Get over yourself. You are no authority on the subject.

 

[ding]

Look... no Jefferson and the point still stands.

Throughout the first century of US. history, natural law was upheld as a key principle of government by the American people and their leader, not only by Presidents and the Congress, but also by the Supreme Court.

In the view of the Court, its members were to decide cases by exercising “that understanding which Providence has bestowed upon them.” (Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1, 186-87, 1824). Since the laws they adjudicated were based on “the preexisting and higher authority of the laws of nature,” (The West River Bridge Company v. Joseph Dix, 47 U.S. 507, 532, 1848), they relied less on judicial precedent than on “eternal justice as it comes from intelligence… to guide the conscience of the Court.” (Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 39 U.S. 210, 225, 1840).

Cicero defines Natural Law as “true law.” “True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions…. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to repeal any part of it, and it is impossible to abolish entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by senate or people, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is God, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst punishment.” (The Five thousand Year Leap, p. 40)

In 1764, Massachusetts patriot James Otis defined Natural Law as “the rules of moral conduct implanted by nature in the human mind, forming the proper basis for and being superior to all written laws; the will of God revealed to man through his conscience.” (Annals of America, 2:11)

Natural Law: The Basis of Moral Government - National Center for Constitutional Studies

“The law of nature is that which God at the time of creation of the nature of man infused into his heart, for his preservation and direction…the moral law, called also the law of nature.” (Sir Edward Coke, Calvin’s Case in The Selected Writings and Speeches of Sir Edward Coke)

“…as man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should, in all points, conform to his Maker's will. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature...This law of nature...dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority...from this original. "Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these." (William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Law 1723-1780)

“Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine…Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants.” (James Wilson “Of the General Principles of Law and Obligation”, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Signed U.S. Constitution)

And that approach, as extreme as you paint it, has been resisted variously during the course of the country's existence. With the waning of the white Protestant great awakenings and revivals by the 1930s, and despite a waning resurgence in the Graham and post-Graham era, a post-Christian emphasis on multiculturalism and the actual teachings of Jesus have come to the fore. Now the American people are entering a growing age of secularlism. So part of what you believe is certainly true for people like you, the post-Graham era is true for me as a Christian, but a solid minority of Americans are either unchurched or skeptical or other religions.

And you have demonstrated in your writings on the Board not any propensity as an historian or exemplar of divine truth.

Do you hold similarly poor opinions of George Washington, John Adams, John Dickinson, George Mason, Daniel Carroll, Edward Coke, William Mansfield, Joseph Story and John Locke because they believed in the Natural Law?

Natural Law and the United States Constitution | The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College Center for Vision and Values - A conservative think tank promoting truth and liberty through a vision of faith and freedom.

The Founding Fathers and the Natural Law: A Study of the Source of Our Legal Institutions on JSTOR

The Manion article, which I read the first time some twenty years ago, remains provocative, very interesting, and not conclusive.

The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College | a conservative think tank promoting truth and liberty through a vision of faith and freedom. is a very far right almost Christian dominion site.

Grove City College is an online degree mill of the far right Christian stamp.

I do know that GW refused communion when pushed by his parish priest and never partook of it again.

John Adams on a good day was a Unitarian.

John Dickinson was a pacifist Quaker then a militant Episcopalian who had no use for Baptists, etc.

George Mason was opposed to religious establishment and fought it against it bitterly, as did Madison and Washington.

Daniel Carroll was a Catholic who thought some of the harder-core Protestant founders were a bit loopy.

If you want better Christian examples of the evangelical prototypes, look at John Jay and Patrick Henry.

Ivan, it's not about religion. The fact that you are trying to make it about religion just proves what a subversive POS you really are.

I have made it about personality and religious beliefs of the Founders, whom you tried to drag in as a supporter of your far right evangelical interpretation of history that refuses to accept other valid points. Get over yourself. You are no authority on the subject.

Bullshit, you have made it about a fringe argument to distract from a self evident truth. Please tell me that you have something more than this weak tea. Maybe you could quote Lenin or Marx for your justification.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And that approach, as extreme as you paint it, has been resisted variously during the course of the country's existence. With the waning of the white Protestant great awakenings and revivals by the 1930s, and despite a waning resurgence in the Graham and post-Graham era, a post-Christian emphasis on multiculturalism and the actual teachings of Jesus have come to the fore. Now the American people are entering a growing age of secularlism. So part of what you believe is certainly true for people like you, the post-Graham era is true for me as a Christian, but a solid minority of Americans are either unchurched or skeptical or other religions.

And you have demonstrated in your writings on the Board not any propensity as an historian or exemplar of divine truth.

Do you hold similarly poor opinions of George Washington, John Adams, John Dickinson, George Mason, Daniel Carroll, Edward Coke, William Mansfield, Joseph Story and John Locke because they believed in the Natural Law?

Natural Law and the United States Constitution | The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College Center for Vision and Values - A conservative think tank promoting truth and liberty through a vision of faith and freedom.

The Founding Fathers and the Natural Law: A Study of the Source of Our Legal Institutions on JSTOR

The Manion article, which I read the first time some twenty years ago, remains provocative, very interesting, and not conclusive.

The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College | a conservative think tank promoting truth and liberty through a vision of faith and freedom. is a very far right almost Christian dominion site.

Grove City College is an online degree mill of the far right Christian stamp.

I do know that GW refused communion when pushed by his parish priest and never partook of it again.

John Adams on a good day was a Unitarian.

John Dickinson was a pacifist Quaker then a militant Episcopalian who had no use for Baptists, etc.

George Mason was opposed to religious establishment and fought it against it bitterly, as did Madison and Washington.

Daniel Carroll was a Catholic who thought some of the harder-core Protestant founders were a bit loopy.

If you want better Christian examples of the evangelical prototypes, look at John Jay and Patrick Henry.

Ivan, it's not about religion. The fact that you are trying to make it about religion just proves what a subversive POS you really are.

I have made it about personality and religious beliefs of the Founders, whom you tried to drag in as a supporter of your far right evangelical interpretation of history that refuses to accept other valid points. Get over yourself. You are no authority on the subject.

Bullshit, you have made it about a fringe argument to distract from a self evident truth. Please tell me that you have something more than this weak tea. Maybe you could quote Lenin or Marx for your justification.

Your is the fringe argument as you well know, using an online far right religious diploma mill as evidence, that churns out easily debatable points.

If you are GCC's best, the mill is doomed to failure.

 

[ding]

Do you hold similarly poor opinions of George Washington, John Adams, John Dickinson, George Mason, Daniel Carroll, Edward Coke, William Mansfield, Joseph Story and John Locke because they believed in the Natural Law?

Natural Law and the United States Constitution | The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College Center for Vision and Values - A conservative think tank promoting truth and liberty through a vision of faith and freedom.

The Founding Fathers and the Natural Law: A Study of the Source of Our Legal Institutions on JSTOR

The Manion article, which I read the first time some twenty years ago, remains provocative, very interesting, and not conclusive.

The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College | a conservative think tank promoting truth and liberty through a vision of faith and freedom. is a very far right almost Christian dominion site.

Grove City College is an online degree mill of the far right Christian stamp.

I do know that GW refused communion when pushed by his parish priest and never partook of it again.

John Adams on a good day was a Unitarian.

John Dickinson was a pacifist Quaker then a militant Episcopalian who had no use for Baptists, etc.

George Mason was opposed to religious establishment and fought it against it bitterly, as did Madison and Washington.

Daniel Carroll was a Catholic who thought some of the harder-core Protestant founders were a bit loopy.

If you want better Christian examples of the evangelical prototypes, look at John Jay and Patrick Henry.

Ivan, it's not about religion. The fact that you are trying to make it about religion just proves what a subversive POS you really are.

I have made it about personality and religious beliefs of the Founders, whom you tried to drag in as a supporter of your far right evangelical interpretation of history that refuses to accept other valid points. Get over yourself. You are no authority on the subject.

Bullshit, you have made it about a fringe argument to distract from a self evident truth. Please tell me that you have something more than this weak tea. Maybe you could quote Lenin or Marx for your justification.

Your is the fringe argument as you well know, using an online far right religious diploma mill as evidence, that churns out easily debatable points.

If you are GCC's best, the mill is doomed to failure.

It's been good enough to hand you your ass.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hardly, dingle. You don't grasp the concept is the problem. Keep studying Jefferson, ALL of Jefferson, and you may get it.

 

[ding]

Hardly, dingle. You don't grasp the concept is the problem. Keep studying Jefferson, ALL of Jefferson, and you may get it.

Can you show anything that explicitly states that our founders did not believe in natural law?